Increased minimum polling time for memory cal steps

  Fixes Awan fails now that we're running DQS_ALIGN step independently

Change-Id: I592dad941b583e5dbcfed4fff6e5806a55f968a6
Reviewed-on: http://ralgit01.raleigh.ibm.com/gerrit1/41413
Tested-by: Hostboot CI <hostboot-ci+hostboot@us.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Jenkins Server <pfd-jenkins+hostboot@us.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: STEPHEN GLANCY <sglancy@us.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: ANDRE A. MARIN <aamarin@us.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: JACOB L. HARVEY <jlharvey@us.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Jennifer A. Stofer <stofer@us.ibm.com>
Reviewed-on: http://ralgit01.raleigh.ibm.com/gerrit1/41415
Reviewed-by: Hostboot Team <hostboot@us.ibm.com>
Tested-by: FSP CI Jenkins <fsp-CI-jenkins+hostboot@us.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Jenkins OP Build CI <op-jenkins+hostboot@us.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel M. Crowell <dcrowell@us.ibm.com>

src/import/chips/p9/procedures/hwp/memory/lib/phy/cal_timers.H

@@ -196,6 +196,10 @@ inline fapi2::ReturnCode cal_timer_setup(const fapi2::Target<T>& i_target,
         poll_parameters& i_poll,
         const fapi2::buffer<uint32_t>& i_cal_steps_enabled)
 {
+    // This should equal half of the minimum poll count of the quickest cal segment when in sim
+    // i.e. DQS_ALIGN + INITIAL_PAT_WR = 3 polls, so this should be 2
+    constexpr uint64_t MINIMUM_POLL_COUNT = 2;
+
     uint64_t l_write_cntr_cycles = 0;
     uint64_t l_total_cycles = 0;
     int64_t l_ns_left = 0;
@@ -246,8 +250,8 @@ inline fapi2::ReturnCode cal_timer_setup(const fapi2::Target<T>& i_target,
     i_poll.iv_poll_count = l_ns_left / i_poll.iv_delay;
     i_poll.iv_poll_count += l_ns_left % i_poll.iv_delay ? 0 : 1;
 
-    // Don't let the poll count be 0 - that just makes for a bad day.
-    i_poll.iv_poll_count = (i_poll.iv_poll_count == 0) ? 1 : i_poll.iv_poll_count;
+    // Make the minimum poll count 2, as that's the value of the quickest cal step in sim
+    i_poll.iv_poll_count = (i_poll.iv_poll_count < MINIMUM_POLL_COUNT) ? MINIMUM_POLL_COUNT : i_poll.iv_poll_count;
 
     // Fudge some for sim irregularities. This will increase time to a complete timeout but won't
     // really effect valid training unless these cycles are needed. So this isn't a bad thing ...